The Polls - Labour Lead At 14 - Is It The Economy?

Thrugelmir

BertieUK wrote: »

In our town many of the shops will have one full time employee to six partime. The partime work no more than sixteen hours a week.

So the figures speak for themselves when figures of unemployment are released with this makeup. Damn lies and statistics.

So would you prefer 3 full time employees and the others unemployed claiming full benefits ?

Wookster

woodbine wrote: »

funny is it not that pre 2010 everything was labours fault,post 2010 everybody but the coalition is to blame
and if you think by 2015 things will be much better then you are deluded
the real decider in the next election will be where the former 4 million former lib dem voters will land their X and polling suggest that most of that support is going directly to labour

I think if you look at most comments, you won't find that anyone thinks the current lot are doing a great job, certainly not as good a job as could be done.

However, what the economically prudent folks here are angry about is Labour's mismanagement of the good times, leaving us with poor education, worse long-term unemployment, a bigger welfare state, a huge deficit, enormous levels of debt (infact the highest in the developed world iirc).

Now these problems need to be resolved against the backdrop of a global bear economy, making it much much much harder.

I hardly suspect that anyone thinks things will be remotely better in 2015, except for the likes of ed balls thinking "if only the chancellor would just change course" we'd be back to sustained growth. Its nonsense. Anyone peddling that sort of BS is playing you for a fool.

Moby

jonewer wrote: »

I wonder about people who say this.

Unfortunately life IS a balance sheet. Because money. It pays for stuff. Now unless you have some magic way of obtaining public services for free then you are ridiculous.

If you see life as a balance sheet that's actually quite sad.
Quote Wookster

However, what the economically prudent folks here are angry about is Labour's
mismanagement of the good times, leaving us with poor education, worse long-term
unemployment, a bigger welfare state, a huge deficit, enormous levels of debt
(infact the highest in the developed world iirc).

A very commonly expressed view now but remember this.... I don't think many anticipated the coming storm. I don't seem to remember the Tories calling for the greater regulation of financial services...instead they were calling for Brown to de-regulate further.
Those 'good times' as you call them were a period in which billions were poured into education and the NHS to re-build public services after years of cutbacks. People now forget the awful state of hospitals and schools in the 1980's.

BertieUK

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So would you prefer 3 full time employees and the others unemployed claiming full benefits ?

The point I was making literally was that the Conservatives claim that they are getting more people back to work when more people are not given the chance of full time employment, my daughter was caught in this trap.

You cannot reasonably think that people can live on 16 hours a week wage, just look at the positive side instead of jumping to your conclusion.

BertieUK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I am not sure of the answer but may this be because this puts them below the level for employers NI contribution , based on the NMW?

Your reasoning is exactly what is happening on the High Streets of many towns it is giving false impressions.

Wookster

Moby wrote: »

If you see life as a balance sheet that's actually quite sad.
Quote Wookster


A very commonly expressed view now but remember this.... I don't think many anticipated the coming storm. I don't seem to remember the Tories calling for the greater regulation of financial services...instead they were calling for Brown to de-regulate further.
Those 'good times' as you call them were a period in which billions were poured into education and the NHS to re-build public services after years of cutbacks. People now forget the awful state of hospitals and schools in the 1980's.

There's just no getting through to socialists that actually economics is more important than politics. Karl Marx was astute enough to realise this.

As it so happens quite a few folks saw the crisis coming, and warned about it.

The notion that you didn't see it coming therefore poor management of the economy before the crisis hit is just nonsense. Governments should be looking at risks and trying to resolve long term problems in the economy (like the ones I mentioned above) regardless of whether they think the sun is going to shine forever or not.

We all know the sun won't shine forever, except for, it would seem Labour and their zealot supporters.

grizzly1911

Wookster wrote: »

Governments should be looking at risks and trying to resolve long term problems in the economy (like the ones I mentioned above) regardless of whether they think the sun is going to shine forever or not.

We all know the sun won't shine forever, except for, it would seem Labour and their zealot supporters.

If only they did look for risks and sort out the long term problems.

Endeavouring to balance the books may help mitigate some risks but others will grow elsewhere because they are not dealing with the long term problems.

The sun may not shine for ever but it is certainly going to become a harder winter.

Optimist

Wookster wrote: »

Governments should be looking at risks and trying to resolve long term problems in the economy (like the ones I mentioned above) regardless of whether they think the sun is going to shine forever or not.

Is this not the problem with sort of democratic government we have. It is all about "the here and now", got to keep the charade up just long enough until election time.

I do not believe any party plans for long term.

Generali

BertieUK wrote: »

In our town many of the shops will have one full time employee to six partime. The partime work no more than sixteen hours a week.

So the figures speak for themselves when figures of unemployment are released with this makeup. Damn lies and statistics.

Not all of those people will want full time work. Some probably will but many will be SAHMs, students and retirees who want to work part time.

In the office I am in currently, 3 out of 8 work part time, all through choice. 1 of them has had to step up from 3 days to 4, much to her annoyance. Of those 3, 2 are parents (one boy one girl) and 1 is rich enough that she only needs a 3 day a week income.

BertieUK

Generali wrote: »

Not all of those people will want full time work. Some probably will but many will be SAHMs, students and retirees who want to work part time.

In the office I am in currently, 3 out of 8 work part time, all through choice. 1 of them has had to step up from 3 days to 4, much to her annoyance. Of those 3, 2 are parents (one boy one girl) and 1 is rich enough that she only needs a 3 day a week income.

I agree fully with what you are saying in your examples, it then suits both employers and their staff.

When stats are released it would be better if they were broken down to show the full breakdown of full/part time figures. Occasionally I have seen the breakdown made but not often.